Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 874 F.2d 1125 - Jones v. Lewis

Jones v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

874 F.2d 1125 · 1989

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Hancock v. Dodson (1992), Gagne v. Northwestern National Insurance Company

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1801989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Batson v. Kentucky · Katz v. United States · Estelle v. Gamble · Warth v. Seldin

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although, in a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case, the factual determination whether exigent circumstances existed to excuse a warrantless arrest is a question for the court, when the issue arises in a civil damage suit it is properly submitted to the jury providing, given the evidence on the matter, there is room for a difference of opinion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]here the underlying facts are essentially undisputed, and where a finder of fact could reach but one conclusion as to the existence of exigent circumstances, the issue may be decided by the trial court as a matter of law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the suspect represented an immediate threat to the arresting officers or the public.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.